People will often ask what motivates me. This is a somewhat complicated topic that several of us have written about here. But I want to tell you what seems to motivate me the most...

I like taking on challenges…big ones. Throughout my whole life people have told me from time to time that I cannot do something, and I liked proving them wrong. I also challenge myself. I want to see how good I can get at something.

Several years ago I started writing up some lessons about 8-Ball for our pool league. The league operators begrudgingly copied them on the back of our score sheets. When pool players in our area saw them, they laughed at me…repeatedly. Whenever I missed a shot they would say, “Hey, Loftus, write that up as a lesson next week will you?” Sometimes people can be unmerciful, and they can hold you down. Apparently only the pro’s could give advice about pool, and since I wasn’t a pro, I shouldn’t presume to tell others how to play the game. Who did I think I was? It’s these naysayers who browbeat others into not even trying to do well. But they motivate me. Those pool players are no longer laughing. For three years now I have been writing monthly instructional columns for the best national billiard magazine in America, and I have a book about pool that is getting some excellent reviews. Just yesterday someone sent me a new training tool (worth $49.95) in hopes I would recommend it, and I did.

Anyway, I hate being laughed at. Being ridiculed and mocked motivates me like nothing else. It’s like pouring gasoline on the flames of my passion. I want to make these people eat their words, and I usually do. Yes, that’s right. I usually do. The reason is that I believe in myself. I know what I am capable of doing if I set my mind to it. I’ve been doing that all of my life. I even have a signature line on one Christian forum that reads: “Personally attacking me is like pouring gasoline on the flames on my passion. I get stronger. I've told you that from the beginning. You didn't believe me. Maybe someday you will.” But the Christian hyenas there like JP Holding and his ilk have ignored it.

So, if you want to motivate me, just mock me. Belittle me. Harass me. Christians have done this to me repeatedly here at DC and elsewhere. In my opinion they are Christianity’s worst enemies, for in doing what they do, they make me stronger. It motivates me to debunk the very faith that justifies their treatment of me. It makes me want to go for the jugular vein of their faith. I doubt very much that the sum total of JP Holding's apologetic efforts his whole life will be in the plus column after factoring in how he and his ilk motivated me to debunk his faith.

There is also a blog terrorist who visits us here at DC under so many names I can’t remember them all. He harasses me almost daily. First he tries to see if he can get by me, then he slips up and repeats (almost word for word) any number of demeaning false accusations against me. Then I ban him. Once banned from DC a person is banned forever (so don’t get banned in the first place). Then he starts another Blogger account and does it again. This process repeats itself almost daily. Then he goes around claiming that I delete any comment that I don’t like, hindering a free discussion of ideas. You’ll see him saying this on several blogs. A year ago there was a Christian named Paul Manata who started a blog claiming to be one of my followers, called the "discomfiter." While claiming to agree with me he grossly mischaracterized my arguments and made me look stupid. I think these Christians and their cronies have even poisoned the well against me with a few other skeptics who seem not to want anything to do with me.

All I can say is that this motivates me. If they are really concerned about the Christian faith against my arguments they shouldn’t do this. They should simply engage me with good arguments. They should defeat my arguments every time I post something. Why they don’t do this and resorts instead to these tactics just goes to show me they cannot adequately deal with my arguments. So come here and argue with us, reasonably. Any reasonable comment that does not harass us will not be deleted. Refer to our comment policy for details.

So let me just take a moment to thank all of those Christians who have ridiculed me in the past for motivating me. To you I owe a debt of gratitude. Your God must be very pleased with you.

49
comments:

I dont know why he does John, and your right he isnt helping our (Christians) case. Unfortunately Christianity doesnt promise that everyone who follows it will be all that clever and strongly implies an awful amount of the time a certain number of us will be flat out dumb. Its part of being human, im sure you feel the same way when you see atheists argue on the basis of terrible arguments or red herring attacks. Ultimately I imagine such people cause others to (though irrationally, I would argue) to lose their faith more then help anyone gain it or even become interested in the topic.

Well said, John. I know the only reason I'm here at all is because Evangelicals couldn't leave well enough alone, and decided that they were going to replace science with religious doctrine, civil rights with religious doctrine, and pretty much every other trapping of secular America with, you guessed it, religious doctrine. And whenever someone had the temerity to say "Hey, this isn't right" they were ridiculed as immoral atheists (even when they were clergy members).

lol....i find it fascinating this whole discussion going on. It would seem to me the best way to 'bring down this site' (aimed at you christian people) is not too visit or respond to anything on this site. But i guess you cant help yourself can you guys? The owner of this blog has clearly stated he lives off your attcks and attempt to 'change ' him, my view is stop visiting and go away. To the atheists (non god people) your best solution to 'winning' seems to be trying to 'catch out' christians who see the bible as the 'very words of God' and the try to playit against them....clever work. I am not sure when the christians will realise that it is the spirit behiond the text that gives the words life and meaning, not the very words themselves, well....at least thats what wikipedia has told me with a quick search (lol).My advice to realise that both atheist and churchies live by a set of faith principles...they are in very different areas but still a 'faith' issue. It seems that atheists have more to lose but not arguing than churchies seem to...so both groups dont bother....be the best at whatever it is you wanna be.All the best

Shygetz, I remember a debate I saw between an inerrantist and an infallibilist. Jack Cottrell (the inerrantist) was misrepresented and maligned by the other guy in his opening statement. Jack stood up to the podium and said something to the effect, "You can misrepresent and malign the Bible if you want to and gain the wrath of God, but once you've misrepresented and maligned me the gloves come off." My motivation is everything you said when it comes to civil rights and so forth, but when some Christians disrespect me personally, the gloves come off.

dan, I followed that link. And I was severely burned by the stupid. There were so many factual inaccuracies (evolution does NOT require a static infinite universe; we have no reason to believe that our planet/solar system/galaxy is uniquely able to support life; we do not know if the universal constants can vary independently or not; we do not know how many universes exist; the gambler's fallacy is NOT assuming unobserved trials exist, it is assuming independent events are linked dependently; his depiction of the fossil record was just wrong; we have documented many new species, both in the lab and in nature; there are NUMEROUS and INDEPENDENT physical and biological measurements that clearly state that the humankind is much more than 6,000 to 60,000 years old; falsifiable mathematical models can give us insight into the existence of other universes, even if we can't measure them; his notion of requiring a precise number of earthquakes for life to evolve is silly; thinking that translation from Hebrew to English makes the Bible more informative because of the larger vocabulary of English is stupid, as any increase in information from the original text MUST come from the translator himself; the Bible NEVER mentions billions of years; the Bible is not only inconsistent with science on the order of "creation", it is inconsistent with itself; he approvingly cites Hubert Yockey's terribly flawed argument based on incorrect data and assumptions that evolution would require an inordinate amount of time; he doesn't understand the idea of entropy and an oscillating universe (although he may be correct that the universe does not oscillate, it is for the wrong reason); the fossil record does not show "improvement" over time--in fact, this term is meaningless as there is no single standard toward which something can "improve"; he understands nothing about quantum mechanics; Genesis 1:1 is NOTHING like the Big Bang--the heavens came LONG before the Earth; etc., etc., ad nauseum) that any conclusion based upon them is pure farce.

Your presupposition probably will not allow you to believe but it is proof non the less.

You're right; my presupposition that facts must be true to be useful will not allow me to believe. Unfortunately, I must quibble with your assertion that this nonsense is proof (unless you mean proof of your ignorance).

If I remember right, you are the guy who keeps linking to that dumb YouTube video with the kid talking about giving you a cookie after an infinite amount of time, which I had to debunk not once but twice because you keep bringing it up even after the errors have been pointed out to you. Dan, you clearly offer no critical thinking when you find something that supports your predetermined ideas. As long as they agree with your theology, sound confident, and use big words, you swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

Do you really think that the evidence is so obvious for theistic creation? Do you really think so little of scientists' critical thinking skills that you firmly believe that people who study this stuff for a living haven't all come to this apparently obvious conclusion?

If you really think so little of us, then get off of your computer. In fact, stop using ALL of our stuff.

Dan, whether or not it was relevant to the thesis as a whole (which was inherently ludicrous to begin with), I stopped reading the instant I encountered the assertion that we have "never observed or documented the formation of a new species [sic]"The author of the article is apparently in complete ignorance of Helacyton gartleri, Sticker's sarcoma, Primula kewensis, Rhagoletis pomonella, Ensatina salamanders, the apple maggot fly, and numerous other examples of documented and observed speciation.

Furthermore, speciation is absolutely essential for biblical literalists who insist upon a world flood narrative. I know of not a single educated Christian, pseudoscientist or otherwise, who claims that every current species of animal was present on the ark.

Anti-Atheist, I see you just started a new Blogger account. And I see you're saying the same kind of things you usually start out saying. I'll betcha a dollar if I deleted your comment you would fire back with expletives and accusations like you do every day.

Anyway, you mischaracterize me, again. If my arguments are so lame why do you feel the need to mischaracteriz me.

No one respond to him, for like always he'll give himself away and I'll delete everything he said.

It was an analogy I think I made in my first edition. Skeptical books like mine do that with the Christian faith. people have said they have lost their faith because of the argument in my book just as I predicted. So?

Anti-Atheist. You are a liar and a hypocrite. What Biblical justification do you have for doing what you repeatedly do here every day? You have no moral high ground to point out any supposed flaws in anyone.

There isn't much to be said against inflammatory "Christian" comments of this variety. No amount of reason or human sensibility is enough to shut up someone of Bill O'Reilly's ilk, and I certainly don't believe Anti Atheist is going to prove himself any different.

For what it's worth, AA, you are the sort of person who gives your entire faith a terrible name. I know plenty of rational and amiable believers with whom I empathize for their delusions, but for egregious slanderers such as yourself I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever.

Although I suppose I can't fault a Christian for living according to a maxim along the lines of "What Would Yahweh Do?" What a horrifying prospect.

After telling me there is no God to tell me what to do, THEY want to tell me what to do!

Yeah, go figure; it's almost like atheists think people should be moral without someone watching them and threatening to torture them forever. Silly atheists; real morality only comes at the barrel of a gun.

Yeah, AA is one of those creeps who likes to hide behind the anonymity of the internet to heap up abuses against others. He gets off on this kind of stuff. I've learned to laugh, shrug my shoulders, and keep moving forward. John will do the same.

I second Caleb's thoughts. If you get online to enjoy thinking and exchanging challenges and arguments to one another, then the trolls are just annoyances that are easily ignored. Making things personal, or allowing them to become that way, is probably not a good idea online. Those who remain anonymous and drive-by to fling insults are usually insecure and have little better to do with their lives. Why give them any thrills from feedback?

Engaging them (as you do in this very thread) only encourages them. You should simply delete their posts without comment.

Dan Marvin is a nice enough guy, I guess, but he shows some characteristics of ad hom also. I had an exchange with him a while back:HERE(private blog, by invite only)

Anyway, Dan, I wanted to say that I just read through Hugh Ross's article you referenced, and it is, like most "scientific apologetics" full of the most glaring logical fallacies and non sequiturs when trying to bloat claims like "time had a beginning" into "therefore Jesus". If you really want to read a thorough shredding of cosmological arguments for God's existence, read Victor Stenger.

Even though we're on opposite sides of the table, I think we're something of kindred spirits. The continual naysaying for me tends to be a motivational factor... How did the Bible term it "Make a table for me in the presence of my enemies".

I'm not afraid to be wrong, because I won't stop trying, and eventually I'll get it right.

Don't let the morons get to you (as if you would), typically they're just here because their christian audiences won't listen to them.

It seems to me that, from what I have been told, ever since you committed adultery on your wife, you have been running from God. But you remain under His wrath. You are guilty before Him. There is God's anger all around you. Wake up and beg Him for repentance! Confess to Him that you are a sinner. Ask Christ to cleanse you of your adulteries, and all of your sin.

Josh, it is clear from your comment that, while the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Parmesean Be Upon Him) has clearly touched your heart with His noodly appendage, you are running from that truth and hiding among the apastates in the so-called "Christian" religion. But you remain under the judgement of FSM (PBUH). You are guilty before Him. The anger of the FSM (PBUH) is all around you, like the crust on a well-baked meatball. He will not be mocked!

Wake up and beg Him for forgiveness! Beg him to bathe you in His holy marinara and embrace you in his doughy noodle. Confess your apastasy, ask the FSM (PBUH) to clean the dirty alfredo from your soul, so that you might start clean at the buffet of eternal life.

I was out of pocket for a few. Thanks for the opinions on the presented "scientific proof of God". Although I didn't agree with some of the things that was presented, I think that it was an interesting way to present the case. Anything that would help someone to draw them to Christ is worth an attempt, in my opinion. My presupposition of the Bible being infallible, inspired, and inerrant word of God is, and always will, be intact. I am sure all of your presupposition that there is no God is in tact also. Common sense and logic just points to a Creator and most points were covered here. Most of you including Dan and Shygetz just had typical responses to counter it.

Dan said "I just read through Hugh Ross's article you referenced, and it is, like most "scientific apologetics" full of the most glaring logical fallacies and non sequiturs when trying to bloat claims like "time had a beginning" into "therefore Jesus". Yawn!

Shygetz suggested "there are NUMEROUS and INDEPENDENT physical and biological measurements that clearly state that the humankind is much more than 6,000 to 60,000 years old; falsifiable mathematical models can give us insight into the existence of other universes, even if we can't measure them;

OK Shygetz I have used this before on other blogs but it is worth posting again to counter your point:

"Lets use mathematics: Let’s say the population doubled ever 150 years. And we start at Adam and Eve and after 32 doublings at 4800 years we get around 8.6 billion people but if we take the “Flood” in account at 4500 years ago we get a number around 6.5 billion people. Assuming the conservative growth rate the current population can be reached well within a 6000 year period.

Now evolutionists say mankind has been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Let’s take that same equation and use just 50,000 years. So we extrapolate that out 50,000 doublings every 150 years (332 doublings) and we get one followed by 100 zero’s. That figure is unimaginable, for it is billions of times greater then the number of atoms that are in the entire universe!

Google “Fossil hat” and you will see it does not take millions of years to create fossils either."

At least the effort to show you that God is in charge (including friends of yours, relatives, and strangers) is being made.

I have been called Jesus freak, a-hole and the most common "Troll" an many other ad hominem attacks but what matters is that all of you are getting the proper Gospel and information to get saved. Standing idly by and watching people perish is not kosher to me. I understand most Christians are probably viewed as pests by most of you, but you should see it from our point of view. We are trying to get all of you to understand that if you are wrong that you will perish, now I'm not trying to force a pascal's wager but I am trying to appeal to your logical conscience. You must be perfect to enter heaven, there is only "one way" to do that and as we all know, we must all repent and trust in Jesus to do this.

The odds of this universe just happening by accident and chance is one in a googol (my guess, it may be more). That alone should show that that life is too precious to throw away in vain explanations of evolution and chance. Dan throws the term "non sequitur" at Creation, are you kidding, you have that flipped Dan. What does not make sense is the entire universe happened by accident and then, by accident also, our earth thrived. All of this by chance, now that's the true non sequitur. Anyone who understands mathematical odds would conclude that these odds are too great to consider seriously. There has to be a better explanation and the infallible, inspired, and inerrant word of God does it without fail.

Wow Dan, nice straw man argument. When have you EVER heard any scientist state that the average doubling time for a human population is 150 years? I'll give you a hint; never. And where did you get the figure of 150 years from? Anthropoligists? Biologists? Let me guess; an apologetics website. But where did they get it from? I'll tell you; they worked backwards from their predetermined date of the flood. Unfortunately, they did not figure the black plague, the influenza epidemics, famines, droughts, wars, etc. that wiped out HUGE swaths of the population in one swoop into their calculations, and since you did not think about the data on your own but rather just parroted figures that supported your predetermined conclusion, neither did you.

It may not take millions of years to fossilize hats; show me an evolutionary conclusion that is based on the rate of fossilization of felt and you might have a point. Oh wait, you can't--they all use bones. Hmmm, tough break there.

I have been called Jesus freak, a-hole and the most common "Troll" an many other ad hominem attacks

It's only ad hominem if they say you are incorrect because you are a freak, etc. Seems like most people here at least say you are wrong AND a freak, which is just name-calling.

The odds of this universe just happening by accident and chance is one in a googol (my guess, it may be more).

And your uninformed guess is worth one billionth of a fake penny (my guess, may be less).

That alone should show that that life is too precious to throw away in vain explanations of evolution and chance.

Your guess should show us? Your ignorant, uninformed GUESS!?!? You can't make dumb arrogance like this up, folks.

What does not make sense is the entire universe happened by accident and then, by accident also, our earth thrived. All of this by chance, now that's the true non sequitur.

Do you even know what a non sequitur is? Based on your use, I doubt it.

Anyone who understands mathematical odds would conclude that these odds are too great to consider seriously.

Because you, who CLEARLY understands nothing of probability theory, has conluded that? Give me a break.

There has to be a better explanation and the infallible, inspired, and inerrant word of God does it without fail.

"Lets use mathematics: Let’s say the population doubled ever 150 years. And we start at Adam and Eve and after 32 doublings at 4800 years we get around 8.6 billion people but if we take the “Flood” in account at 4500 years ago we get a number around 6.5 billion people. Assuming the conservative growth rate the current population can be reached well within a 6000 year period.

I just couldn't get over the silliness of this remark, so I did some quick calculations. Noah's flood would have occurred two doublings after Adam and Eve (300 years=two doublings). So, at that time, there would have been 8 people in the world, the same number as was on the Ark! So, God sent his flood to kill ABSOLUTELY NO ONE. Maybe He's not such an asshole. At the time of Exodus, there would have been 9 (count 'em, NINE) doublings between Adam and Eve and Moses. That means that when Moses led 600,000 Israelites out of slavery in Egypt, there was a total of 1024 people in the world. This puts the Bible off by, well, almost 600,000 Israelites and an assumedly much greater number of Egyptians, not to mention everyone else in the world. And the number you get, Flood or no, is the same (Noah took 8 people including himself, and there were two doublings between Noah and Adam).

Seriously, Dan, are you that stupid?

Also, I checked out that so-called "fossil hat". That's NOT a fossil; that hat has been impregnated by calcium, not replaced. I can do the same thing in my lab in a day, but it isn't a fossil (which you would know if you bothered to check out what a fossil actually is).

Methusalah, the bristlecone pine, is hundreds of years older than the flood. The King Clone creosote bush in the Mojave Desert is 11,700 years old, which predated your flood by some 7,000 years.

Seriously, how does ANYONE fall for this crap anymore?

Dan, I have shown you numerous times that your sources cannot be trusted, yet you keep going back to them. Fool you once, shame on them, fool you twice, shame on you.

At some point, you start taking moral responsibility for intentionally spreading misinformation from a source that has been proven unreliable. From now on, when you approvingly cite YEC junk from AiG or similar organizations without checking your facts, I am going to accuse you of Lying for Jesus.

I think it's a young earth not an old one. If you take these numbers and extrapolate anything out, even cockroaches, over millions of years it just doesn't fit. If you take these numbers in the 6000 year time frame it’s a plausible fit. All of it was reset and started over with Noah's flood 4500 years ago.

Earth's oldest living inhabitant "Methuselah" at 4,767 years, has lived more than a millennium longer than any other tree. Everything was destroyed before that, in the flood, nothing is older because of that reason. You want to know when the flood was, just look at that one Bristlecone Pine in California.

There is an exponential acceleration after a certain point. One can conclude that after a short time there had to be catastrophic events to reset the numbers, along with it being a young earth. Why aren’t we finding trillions of animals before a certain point because of the “millions” of years or any evidence to support it?

Quite simply, the big back legs on the locust, etc. were not counted as "legs" in the same sense as the other legs.

Where does it state this in the Bible? Where have anthropologists stated this elsewhere? No where. There is no evidence to back this up.

Seriously, this is the entirety of their argument:

Unacceptable? The alternative is to say that the Hebrews - who ate these things raw, for crying out loud - didn't see that these bugs had six legs. Maybe they closed their eyes before putting them in their mouths...?

See! They say that this MUST be the explanation because the Bible MUST be inerrant, and if this wasn't the explanation then the Bible would CLEARLY be falst.

"Lev. 11:20-3 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind (which does not leap--ed), and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."

See there, Dan, if you look at the actual Bible, you see that the part saying insects have four feet is NOT the part talking about legs above the feet. Insects with legs above the feet are kosher (except beetles, which are not leapers); all other flying creeping things that have four feet are not kosher.

Your "interpretation" would mean that locusts are both kosher (having legs above the feet and being specifically mentioned) AND not kosher (having four feet without legs over them). And you accuse me of underestimating the ancient Hebrews?

Indeed my source for the population doubling

Here is the article: Billions of People in Thousands of Years?

Doubling every 150 years is a very conservative figure.

In that article, just like in the other AiG article you listed, they pulled the 150 year figure out of their bottoms. You claim it is a conservative figure, but you don't back it up. Also, you ignore the fact that this figure would mean that the Bible lied about the time of Moses and the Biblical flood of Noah, just for starters.

Did you not read your link and see that it had no source for the 150 year doubling figure? Can you not do the math yourself and figure out that there would have been 8 people at the time of Noah, and only a few thousand at the time of Moses? Can you physically not see arguments against your predetermined "faith" that you cannot answer?

God is who He is because he says He is who He is.

Just because mankind calls that possibly circular doesn't mean anything.

rockingchair, most of us here have led a relatively fortunate life. Talk to the tsunami survivors in Indonesia and tell them how Jesus would never flood their homes and sweep their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters out to sea to drown.